GIS Cyberinfrastructure Module
EEB 5894 section 10
Day 2 Assignment
NAME:
Please answer the following questions from your Day 2 exercises. The same questions are embedded in the exercises and are indicated by square bullets ( ) and italic text.
Why is this (Data agreement) statement important?
What issues might we have with this (GBIF) data if we want to build a species distribution model?
What information is displayed (from clicking on the GBIF species distribution map)?
Do you see a way to obtain this (tabular) data?
Which option (for GBIF data without latitude and longitude) seems most reasonable from a time management and scientific perspective? Why?
What information do we still not know about the (GBIF) records that do have geographic data?
Do any(GBIF) records look out of place (on the map)?
Are there obvious corrections that could be made to remedy the location of these records?
Any ideas for an easy way to move the coordinates?
Do you now see why these data must be used with caution? If you have a current research project, how dense do the stations look for your locality?
Do we have a New England boundary shapefile that matches the datum and projection of bio_1?
What is the problem with our (initial Seamless Server) request? What did we request? How do we find out?
What (data) did we request? Is there anything selected that we can omit?
What are our data acquisition options now (after the first request)?
Where can we get bounding area coordinates?
What units are acceptable as inputs (for defining the bounding area)? Do ours conform?
What units are the layer extents in now (in the re-projected boundary file)?
What is the result (of the second Seamless Server request)?
What is the result (of the third Seamless Server request)?
Do you see any issues (with the CT Seamless Server data request) that we’ll have to deal with?
Think about workflow. How would you proceed to assemble an elevation dataset for all of New England?
How might you proceed with assigning the elevation of each point from the DEM to the specimen observations?
What other processing technique used today required different tools for vector and raster data?
What is the geometry of the new layer?
What additional data included here that was not in the attribute table for the GBIF_Phrag_NE?
Do you notice anything odd about the new data? What might be causing your observation? (Hint: use the selection tools to view “odd” points in the map display)
When using the Extract to Points Tool multiple times to add values from multiple rasters, why is it necessary to use the output from the previous run of the tool as the input to the next run? Try it to help answer the question.
How is this process (Intersect Points Tool) different from the “Extract to Points” and Spatial Join Tools?
Why are you getting this (warning) message (from the Intersect Points Tool)?
What data was added (to the attribute table by the Intersect Points Tool)?
How is this (Intersect Points Tool) result different that the output of the Extract to Points Tool?
Does the (exported) table look like youexpect?
1